2. I voted no...

because, I couldn't think of a situation where I would do that. But, who knows some creative person might be able to think of one. I think it is much more likely I would exaggerate the effects of something in order to get out of jury duty.

5. I've lied to get out of it.

But I never knew what the cases were beforehand, that's why they make you fill out the questionnaire before you do anything. But if I did know ahead of time what case I was going to be assigned to I might lie to get on it. It would depend on the case.

7. Why would you do that? n/t

11. Because they always call me when I'm working.

And I can't afford to miss work for what they pay. Of course, I've been out of work for nine months and have not received a call. I wouldn't mind serving now, I'm bored nearly to death. They'll call me as soon as I get a job and I'll have to get out of it again. That's the way my luck goes.

36. It's not like I want to, I have to.

My bosses will usually put me in for the day I go to jury duty but they will not cover me for a week or more. I have no choice but to get out of it. Eight bucks a day is nothing. They should just give you nothing, it would be less insulting.

37. I don't blame you.

I weaseled out of it last time around. I got called to the court in a northwest suburb past the airport. I wouldn't even begin to get how I was supposed to get from the city (chicago) out to Rolling Meadows. I'm not getting up at 4am to hike that far out.

12. Depends. I've been on them before and through selection a few times. One question

I was asked was, had I ever been accused of a crime I didn't commit? Not exactly, but I have been accused of a few things I didn't do. A couple of time on the job. I assume the prosecutor asked that to weed out people that know what that is like. Once you have been in that position, if you're smart you understand a few things others don't. I was in a position where being accused and innocent, I could understand how they would think it was me.

I know I would be fair but more likely to demand a higher standard of proof that a lot of other people. My fairness would likely seem stubborn to someone willing to convict on shaky evidence. I can see lying in some cases to be the right thing to do.

30. Jury is back

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Apr 27, 2012, 09:23 PM, and the Jury voted 2-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: I have to agree with the alerter as long as the accuser has nothing to back up the allegation. HIDE IT

Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: if you read it it is part of a 3 post back and forth between 2 duers neither of whom seems to feel attacked in fact it looks like they are having fun.is this alerted because they wont let you play too?just more waste of time serial alerting.honest to god it should be a death penalty on du to abuse the alert system this way.how do i send this alert to mirt?<verdict by swampg8r>

Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Nope, not a personal attack.

Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Personal attack? What is this, the ghost of Lozo? The TOPIC is about lying. Leave it.

65. I'm speaking about the visceral. Being completely honest about your feelings. One

man facing trial evoked a real negative feeling about him. I voiced those feelings to the judge and lawyers and got excused. I wasn't sure I could be unbiased. One plaintiff I didn't know, but I knew his mother from my mail route. I knew I would be influenced by my feelings for her. In other cases I knew the lawyers involved. One was the great Gatewood Galbraith. I walked up to the front, Gatewood gave me a hug and said he has no issues with me being on the jury. The DA laughed and objected. I was excused.

51. That's an aspect of profiling. n/t

35. I would take jury duty very seriously and would NEVER lie

peoples lives are in the balance. It's one thing to vent here on DU but if I were on a jury I would strive to be as un-bias as possible and error on the side of being lenient than being too harsh in the event I was wrong.

40. YES, of course! (But not in your hypothetical)

Of course one should not lie about their objectivity on a particular case, as in the OP hypothetical, because that robs the defendant of his/her constitutional protections.

But there are cases where I would lie to be on a jury... when I objected to the LAW being enforced.

Jury nullification is an important part of the system.

The exclusion of jurors who intend to nullify the law is also robbing the defendant of an implicit protection.

For instance, nobody who refuses to issue a death sentence is allowed on a capital jury. That is insane. A meaningful jury of your peers is not a jury with pre-selected views on the propriety of the laws you are charged under!

I would lie about that.

A drug possession case? An obscenity case? Yes, I would lie to get on those juries and would refuse to convict.

How about a state that criminalized abortion? I would surely lie to get on that jury!

63. would you want to

nullify every drug possession case? Would it matter to you what type of drugs or quantities? Would it matter if there were other charges along with the drug possession (eg a weapons charge)?

Would you lie to the other jurors during deliberations why you were voting "not guilty"?

I find this topic fascinating and am curious about your thinking. There's jury nullification because of object to law per se, and then there's jury nullification because of application of law in particular instance. I personally think that the former type of nullification has its place as a society's last resort of objection to a law, especially one that the majority of a society opposes. But I'd worry if it were a widespread phenomenon.

72. Additional charges would be case by case

It really doesn't matter what drugs or behaviors I would or would not personally nullify the criminality of. Just that there are some.

It is indeed a slippery slope. A lot of folks would nullify gun laws. A lot of folks have nullified crimes against black people. Etc.

But the idea of a jury of your peers requiring unanimity means that criminal law is not 51% vs. 49%. A narrow majority can criminalize something but to get unanimous convictions requires that almost everyone supports the law.

And I think that is a good standard for criminal law. You never want 51% throwing the other 49% in prison.

If all juries were representative and all jurors knew that no harm could come to them from not following instructions then it is hard to see how anyone could be convicted (unanimity being required) of possession of marijuana.

In that case, elections can keep upholding the criminalization but prosecutors stop bringing cases, because you can't get a conviction. It will aways be a hung jury.

When the state seeks to exclude the roughly 50% of the population who opposes that law from the jury then it seems like rigging the system.

47. it's shit like this that makes me fear ever having to face a jury.

it's quite disappointing to know that a jury of my peers would likely be a dozen people whose time has no value whatsoever. it's too bad more people who possess critical thinking skills refuse to use them when it matters, merely because a few days their time is so important to them.

46. When I went to recent jury duty I thought, "Hey, I'm totally impartial."

Gun crime came up and at the very very end, right before the final juror was chosen (ie, me, I was juror #1 and they went from 14 to 1 in their questioning, I was literally the last juror), I decided to admit that I didn't think I could be impartial. I had written about being shot at on the juror questionnaire and literally two nights before there was a shooting where I lived but the prosecuting attorney didn't ask me one question about it. The defense spotted it though (had it marked on the questionnaire).

Never did find out what happened with that case, it never made the news, I guess it was too small time.

I have a new found respect for the jury system, in any event, and even if you think you'd lie I think your civic duty kicks in and that whole idea goes out the window real quick.

49. Good timing...

50. I think George Zimmerman would...cause I get the feeling this question has to do with the case.

Honestly, this is the most absurd question. You are not the only voting on a persons life. And that is no joke. No one can in know in their heart of hearts the thoughts and actions of another. Additionally who wants to be seated on a Jury just for economic reasons. I lie to get out of jury duty. Not to get on jury duty.

57. Maybe even the opposite.

58. I've been on two juries and was excused from a third.

No, I wouldn't lie. They ask; I answer. The jury I was excused from was one where a protester at the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant in California was going to be tried for trespassing. The question was: Do you have strong feeling about the safety of nuclear power? I said that I did, indeed, and that I was opposed to putting a nuclear plant on an earthquake fault. I was excused. To lie about my opinion would have been stupid, since I was part of a group of official interveners.

69. I lied to not be on a jury.

But I was picked anyway. This was many years ago in Miami. I was younger and blonde and looked like a bimbo. I gave stupid answers to the questions the attorneys asked me, but I guess they wanted a dumb blonde on the jury. Fortunately, the suspect plea bargained and I did not have to serve.

71. Yes, I would lie, and here's why

One of the little-known aspects of US history was the adaptation of the jury system because of the inherent distrust of government being the sole arbiter of justice. However, the republicanist military/prison/industrial tycoons have structured the courts to veer greatly toward the state, with the ability to control the jury pools even though they convey the actual laws of the land in their judgments.

Having said that, in order to restore the jury to its INTENDED purpose of rendering TRUE justice, not just for the defendent but for society at large, I would lie to get on a jury. In fact, even if a defendent is guilty, I would render a not guilty verdict if I feel the law ITSELF is not just or is a product of the tyranny of the republican mindset. So, obviously, I would have to lie to get past the republicanist lawyers in this regard.

If everyone followed my own tenets, we would have a FAR more just court system, and in addition, an ability for us to understand that the republican Party is at the root of all that is reprehensible and destructive in this country, and in extension, this fragile planet.